The Fallacy Of Shifting Ground

The Fallacy of Shifting Ground A Tract Book Essay By Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A. (Phil.), J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar One of the more interesting, and often unnoticed forms of arguing falsely, or fallaciously, the the Fallacy of Shifting Ground. The whole idea is not very complicated, it works like this:

I start out an argument having the key word defined implicitly or

explicitly as Definition A, during the middle of the argument I then, without really letting anyone know, shift the key word definition to Definition B, and continue the argument. Let me give an example. I’ll make up an interesting word, “Theosphany.” Now, as far as I know, Theosphany doesn’t really even have a definition, but I’ll make one up. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the word Theosphany means political theology. Here is the situation. I am on a law faculty and one of the faculty members believes in liberation theology. At a faculty meeting, Stan Smith attacks the professor, Joe Farmer, and accuse him of Theosphany. Stan Smith tells everyone that Theosphany is one of the most terrible crimes there is, and additionally, that Theosphany is a serious sin. Joe Farmer tries to defend himself. He asks, “Why do you think that I have committed Theosphany?” “Well,” Stan Smith says, “you believe in Liberation Theology, that is Theosphany.” Now, here comes the shift in ground.

Joe Farmer replies, “But you’re a republican you are against abortion on the basis of the Bible, that’s Theosphany too.” “Theospany does not include the Bible.”

“No, its not,” Stan Smith replies, “Oh,” says Joe Farmer, as he gets fired from

his job for Theosphany, and gets put on a psychiatric ward. Now, we the audience know that the original definition of Theosphany was “political theology.” Without telling anyone, the definition was changed from that to “Political Theology not involving the Bible.” Now, if Joe Farmer knew what was going on, he would have asked what the logical distinction was between Theosphany as originally defined and Theosphany as later defined. Joe Farmer might have been able to argue that there really is no rational basis to exclude Biblical Theology from the overall idea of Theosphany.

Once this was done, Joe Farmer could have accused Stan Smith, of

Theosphany, and accused Stan Smith of hippocracy, or even have argued equitable estoppel against him. So, watch out for the Fallacy of Shifting Ground.